Year: 2005

  • Swarm or Smarm?

    Too busy to say anything of any substance today, so sounding a little like a broken record, but look here:

    As I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be some panic abroad that the disinformation spread by hardcore partisan bloggers is somehow shaping reality for the nonpartisan centrists who seem to be in hiding. I have always had my doubts—and if I have to cast my lot with anyone, it will be with the optimists and the anthropologists, who tend to see the big picture and the broad view. In other words, it should be reassuring that we live in intensely polarized times where the tyranny of the majority rests on the thinnest margin, and the minority isn’t shy about saying so. (I do worry though about the violence that can be done to the country and its constitution in such a brief burst of pressing a slight advantage.) It should be possible for a slight majority of voters within the next two years to lose the scales from their eyes, and see raw power-grabbing for what it is, and begin the slow process of fixing what’s been done to us. (Didn’t this guy just win a seat and now he’s already looking for a promotion?)

    As for certain silly attempts to continue to “frame” the conversation, I’m with editor Anders Gyllenhaal—bring ’em on. The neo-con blogosphere has already run up against the glass ceiling of credibility. When the choir is already full, and you just keep preaching the same gospel, the only room for movement is back out of the choir, where the rest of us have plenty of doctrinal elbow room.

    Take, for example, this litany of supposed lefty bias exhibited by Dan Rather. It only appears to be evidence of lefty bias if you yourself are biased in the other direction. There are times when the facts militate against a particular political paradigm—but then the right has never shown much respect for or interest in the facts. If you need a measure of hubris, it is when they believe their gotcha moments are self-evident, when they are merely self-defeating, risible indications of the troglodyte’s myopia.

  • From The Annals Of Exploration

    orangutan.jpg

    I recall reading somewhere about a party of British adventurers who were mucking about in some primitive, forsaken place. This was, if I’m not mistaken, some time in the 19th century. According to a handful of sketchy journals they left behind they’d had an arduous expedition and had lost several members of their party to violence and various mysterious maladies.

    Much of the time they spent navigating an unpredictable river and plodding through thick brush and rough, rocky terrain. I don’t quite remember what they were looking for, but I’m certain it can be safely surmised that it was more or less something they hadn’t seen before. Like many such explorers I’m supposing they were bored with domesticity and civilization, and hoped that hardship and peril would make them men again.

    They were also –once again, like many such characters– blunderers, utterly ill-prepared and incompetent, certain that their firearms and education (they were mostly well-to-do graduates of Oxford, I believe, with a handful of hardscrabble human mules to do their dirty work) made them superior to the vague task at hand.

    Almost needless to say, they disappeared, as is so often the case with such foolhardy explorers. Many years later a party of anthropologists and botanists stumbled across a jungle clearing in that still inhospitable part of the world, a clearing where they discovered a field of bleached skulls seemingly growing from the earth like jack-o-lanterns made of bone. Additional investigation revealed that the bodies belonging to these skulls had been buried vertically, and presumably alive, up to their necks.

    When these unfortunate souls were excavated it was discovered that they were still wearing their tattered clothing, and one of their number was yet clutching in what was left of his right hand a scrap of moldering cloth on which was scrawled in fading script the words: “White Men.”

  • The Twin Most Likely To Be Sidelined With Leprosy And Gout

    Either Western Canada’s a harsh breeding ground for all manner of ailments and afflictions –a sort of jerkwater petri dish blooming with pestilence– or the Twins need to find out what the hell Justin Morneau’s putting in his body and/or what he’s done to offend Zeus. Because Morneau’s rapidly becoming the Molehill Job, a man beleaguered by one strange health crisis after another.

    Don’t they have indoor plumbing up there in Moosekatoon, or wherever it is Morneau’s from? Are there adequate laundry facilities? Do they properly dispose of their dead? Isn’t there someplace the kid could at least get some vitamins, for crying out loud? Red Cross helicopters should be en route to Morneau’s home town as we speak.

    I mean, good lord, pleurisy? Isn’t that something pirates are supposed to catch, if in fact it’s something you actually catch? Have you ever heard of anyone else coming down with a case of pleurisy? I sure as hell haven’t.

    And that, of course, is just one of Morneau’s winter collection of ailments, a list that just got longer by one (now, it turns out, he’s got a cyst that needs to be removed) and includes, besides pleurisy, chicken pox, appendicitis, and pneumonia. Those are all ugly words, and strange words to be associated with a strapping 23-year-old lad from Canada.

  • Power Corrupts Absolutely

    I have, for several weeks now, been saying that it is immoral to give certain highly intelligent, totally unaccountable liars any more exposure than they already get, but this morring I suddenly had two countervening epiphanies. First, I am no better nor more important than they are (considerably less so, actually), so for the moment I will suspend my own arrogance and obsequiousness, and I will climb into the jello-tub with them.

    Second, I realized that I am making certain prejudicial assumptions about them. I have intuited that they are the worst sort of writers—pundits who never manage to escape a cycle of conforming the facts to an uncritical idolatry of current neo-con gospel. The reason they never surprise you is that they have no other job than to idolize that gospel, and doing something interesting—along the lines of a thoughtful critique of their own inherited party-line positions—is not within the realm of the possible for them. (Update: We expected a gradual deteriorization of consensus in the ranks, and here it comes—from the aging agnostics. Unchallenged arrogance and groupthink has its inherent downside. Power corrupts, you know.) So I decided, right here and now, that I would give these fellows the benefit of the doubt. When I go to their blog, which I will do momentarily, I will check on their position with regard to the shameless bankruptcy bill (so ably considered by the Big Boss over here). If their position is what I expect it to be, I pledge that I will never again sully these pages with the merest mention of them. On the other hand, if they surprise me, the lines will stay open.

    Just to be clear, I am not a powerful, widely read pundit (the closest I ever got to Time magazine was once interviewing to be an editor there), and I have no reasonable hope of influencing anyone anywhere. This is merely a proposed personal and permanent embargo. In other words, this will hurt me more than it hurts you. Ah, but there I go making my assumptions again!

    So, here I go… be right back… (start the clock)…

    I’m back. It took me three minutes to scroll the homepage. Wading through a majority of posts that mostly celebrate (what else) the importance of Power Line, or idolize the President, I was astonished to see that the boys have not weighed in on the Bankruptcy Bill… I need to dive back in here. Is it possible that there is no reasonable defense that a couple of bankers can credibly pose? Hmmm.. be right back…

    I cannot readily find the boys’ views—they have apparently never mumbled the word “bankruptcy” as a term pertaining to banking rather than morality—but I have had, in just a few minutes, a nose full of their self-promotion, self-righteousness, and… well, just their selves. I think it would be wrong not to go ahead with that embargo just the same.

  • A Modest Proposal

    I don’t know why there isn’t more talk of moving Lew Ford into the leadoff spot. At this stage of his career Shannon Stewart is no longer a prototypical leadoff guy; he’s pretty clearly lost his wheels and isn’t much of a threat to steal a base or beat out a groundball, both areas where Ford seems to excel.

    Lew also does a good job of taking and fouling off pitches, and he drew more walks (67) last year than Stewart has in any of the last six seasons –sixty-seven, in fact, is Stewart’s career high. Stewart does have a career on base percentage of .370, which isn’t bad, but in 642 career at bats Ford’s OBP is now .383.

    The problem, of course, is that Stewart’s also probably not the ideal guy to bat second, and the Twins haven’t had a guy uniquely suited to that role in years. Hard as it is to believe, Stewart’s still only thirty-one years old, albeit a creaky thirty-one. Even so, his production has been mostly wasted in the leadoff spot in his time with Minnesota, and though he was injured for a big chunk of last year he hasn’t scored 100 runs in either of the last two seasons.

    Joe Mauer has been talked about for the two spot (that’s if –knock wood, help me Jesus– the flare-up with his knee isn’t serious), and he’d probably be pretty productive there; but do you really want Mauer sacrificing and hitting behind the runner and doing all the thankless grunt work that is expected of your two hitter? I don’t, no, not particularly. I’d much rather see him in the three spot where he belongs.

    Which leaves Stewart as the most logical candidate at two, presuming Jason Bartlett doesn’t earn the starting shortstop job. I say get Lew and Stew as many at bats as possible over the course of the season, let them both set the table for Mauer, Morneau, and Hunter et al, and take your chances.

    Regardless of what Ron Gardenhire decides to do, you really do have to figure this team will score more runs than last year’s model, which went through way too many maddening stretches where they couldn’t put up any crooked numbers and the pitching had to carry them. Based on what I saw and read all last year I guess I was sort of surprised to not see Brad Radke’s name on the tough losses leader board in the latest edition of The Bill James Handbook

    Yet even with plenty of reasons to be more optimistic about the team’s offense, you figure things will balance out a bit with the pitching staff. They could lead the AL in earned run average again, but I think that might be asking a bit much in the way of repeat performance, even though, yes, they do have everybody back (including, presumably, Joe Mays) and I expect Kyle Lohse to show radical improvement from last year (I’ll have more on Lohse a bit later).

  • Overheard In An Elevator

    asphalt-dance.jpg

    Look, man, I’m not saying every McDonald’s manager is a 265-pound white woman, I’m just telling you that that pretty much describes every one I’ve ever worked for.

    You really think Tina’s 265 pounds?

    If she isn’t, she’s not much more than a couple Big Macs away. Shit, man, why don’t you ask her? That ought to get you the assistant manager’s job.

  • Freedom of The Press

    By now you have heard about the flap over at The New York Press, where editor Jeff Koyen walked the plank for a tasteless feature called “The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope.” The general consensus seems to be that his main transgression was publishing a spectacularly unfunny piece by a writer who is a jackass. We have said it many times before, but no one seems to notice: If you do not care about your subject, it is impossible to be funny about it. This has confused some readers. They have written to ask whether this means one cannot poke fun or be mean in any way, and that is not what we mean. For example, here is a very good example of a pope joke that works, and it does not reflect very well on the pope himself. But if you desconstruct the joke, it is clear what the jokester cares about: social justice and progressivism, which in certain cases is emphatically not what the pope nor the Church are interested in.

    The “official” story is that the publisher and owner of the Press were most exercised by Koyen’s “insubordination” in a technical matter. Koyen apparently wished to parody the New York Post at the same time that he made fun of the octogenarian pontiff, and lawyers at the Press apparently trembled at the prospect of landing in court with Rupert Murdoch’s henchmen. It is certainly true that putting yourself in the Australian Sauron’s cross-hairs is normally suicidal. On the other hand, parody is a time-honored protectorate of the fair use doctrine, and Murdoch would look pretty bad putting the Press out of business on an overreach like that. For their part, the publisher and owner don’t seem to care that certain public officials are calling on New Yorkers to break the law by gathering and throwing away any copies of the Press they might find. (This is against the law, and amounts to an abrogation of freedom of the press. It also reminds us of mobs in burlap with pitchforks and torches.) All in all, we have to say probably every last person at the Press, top to bottom, including the publishers and the lawyers, ought to either be fired or publically shamed, and that appears to be what’s happening. What an unadulterated debacle—rather like a runaway car full of egomaniacs who will not stop and ask for directions.

    The main problem with the New York Press is not incidental, it is systemic. The Press has no friends in any quarter. We find that it has a hard time caring about any subject, and seems interested mostly in hearing its own voice. As a brilliant friend once said, after we ourselves made a brief appearance as the subject of a Press article, “You don’t necessarily want to read about yourself in the New York Press.” Despite frequent intonations of the holy name of H.L. Mencken, this has never been an asset to anyone, least of all the Press.

    We are fans of Russ Smith’s, but this hand-biting legacy is probably down to him, and has been nothing but trouble in the hands of lesser writers and editors. He certainly was able to make a viable business of pure contrarianism, but we worry about his successors. If they are serious about plying new waters with the paper, they really ought to change editorial direction dramatically and make some powerful friends—or else hire Russ Smith’s equal. Koyen’s somewhat juvenile efforts to make the Press “more dangerous” were precisely what the paper did not need—by the sheepish admission of its owners.

    In the end, we can all agree that we want the same thing. Simple-minded editors and writers (and publishers and lawyers) need to understand that editorial credibility is absolutely critical. Confusing contrarianism with credibility is an easy thing to do, but it is a deal-breaker. When you are trying to be funny, and trying to care about your subject, but failing at both, your credibility is damaged just as badly as if you wrote nothing but fawning sycophancy on behalf of your advertisers.

  • The Scarlet Letter

    nathaniel-hawthorne-200x287.jpg
    The first author of The Scarlet Letter

    In one of the last words before the “Buy Congress Now and Pay Later” bankruptcy bill passes the Senate today, here’s Paul Krugman.

    All that remains now is for the DeLay controlled House to add the part about poor people having to wear a scarlet “D” (for Debtor) on their chests, and it will be off to the President for his signature.

    All I can hope is that next time you vote, you remember that since the last time Congress raised the minimum wage seven years ago to about $10,700 per year, they’ve voted themselves raises of over $28,000. I think they get health insurance on top of that, too.

  • Ain't That A Damn Fine Idea?

    A genius to me is somebody who does something wonderful I can’t begin to comprehend, and with his latest virtuous and ambitious enterprise John Bonnes (a.k.a. Twins Geek) fits the bill. If you’ve been reading John’s blog over the last few seasons you know that he’s among the more balanced and rational of the baseball obsessives holding court in cyberspace (and, believe me, that’s saying something). He offers up the macro, the micro, and pretty much everything in between, and you always have the sense of a real, rounded, breathing person behind his posts –an actual guy with a life who nonetheless needs to get a life, in other words, instead of just a guy who needs to get a life.

    Twins Geek, like most of the other team-related sites, was clearly started as a labor of love, an act of faith conceived in isolation and tossed out into the void. To his credit, John has a good deal more savvy, technical wherewithal, and just plain doggedness than most of us –or at least certainly more than I’ll ever have– and he’s managed to build a fine franchise over there at the Geek. Now he’s taking the whole thing a big leap forward, turning his perfectly fine single-family home into a flophouse for all manner of Twins-obsessed riffraff.

    I have absolutely no idea how John’s new thing works. I haven’t figured it out yet, and it may take me a while. What it appears to be, though, or aspires to be, is a baseball blog built along the community ownership model, and what could be better than that? Anyone who wants gets to claim a bit of real estate in Twins Territory, a soap box of their own to ramble and rant and reason to their heart’s content.

    God knows, this could all end up being a terribly entertaining nightmare, a literal cyberspace version of Baseball Babel. It could also turn out to be a sort of ultimate Utopian democracy, an ideal straight out of Bart Giamatti’s Yale wet dreams. Whatever it’ll be, it’s for damn sure going to be fun to watch. Check it out, and let John know what you think.

  • Review of Reviewers: Smoke-Out Edition

    We happened to be sharing a table with Star Tribune critic Chris Riemenshneider over the weekend—although we prefer to stay incognito, the better to avoid a punch on the nose for previous infractions and faux pas. Where were we? In the choked air of the Fine Line Music Cafe, after receiving a pair of press tickets for the sold-out show. (God Almighty, please pass that smoking bill. We have smoke-induced glaucoma, and the entire office needs an abatement team after wearing that shirt in doors.) So here is the justification for receiving those freebies: A review of the reviewers.

    We recieved our tickets at about the same time that we read Mr. Dylan Hicks’ review of the band, which is the Kings of Leon, a Tennessee quartet whom we happen to like quite a lot. We like Dylan, too—so much so that we still fondly remember things he wrote for us and we are pleased with his recent elevation as an editor—but we rigorously disagree with his crabby prejudice against this band.

    We won’t go into a lot of the details, because there aren’t many things that are as boring as rock critics arguing about bands. But we did want to hold these fellows feet to the fire just a little bit.

    Dylan, we have to say, kind of stepped in it with last week’s issue of his weekly newspaper. Not only did he trot out that hoary old complaint about this town basically being too white. (It is. This is not news anymore. Besides, the Current plays all kinds of music by black artists—just not a lot of gangsta rap. And they’re not all dead, either! Well, you’ll be able to read all about it this week, no doubt, in the newspaper’s letters from readers.) It’s OK that he failed to see the point of the Kings of Leon (which is their twisted sense of humor and their Dixie-Redneck-in-King-Arthur’s-Court shtick), and it’s even OK that he committed the worst critical sin that can be committed (not at least inferring what the critic DOES care about, which is the only way to innoculate a mean review, with some human sympathy). As it is, a reader might think the critic doesn’t want to admit what it is, precisely, that’s bugging him. You don’t want to give readers a reason to say, “He’s just jealous.” (Overheard from a nearby table.) That’s a bad sign.

    Dylan based his critique mostly on the lyrical content of the band’s music, and the quality of the singer’s voice. It is dangerous business relying on even the most audible, legible musicians from their own published lyrics sheets when it is the basis for your critique. But to translate an intentional southern mush-mouth like Caleb Followill is a special risk indeed. The more obvious thing to do is to describe the sound and the overall mood, rather than what the singer is actually saying. But this is a much more difficult job.

    You can have the words right and get the critique wrong. Where Dylan hears an angry, cynical, morally bankrupt band, we hear a mirthful, funny, clever, pop-savvy band. (You could make a case that it’s a put-on, without that being necessarily a bad thing—why do you think they call it “show-business”?)

    No one likes to be misunderstood, especially when the misunderstanding gets printed one hundred thousand times. Perhaps this is why the Kings back-identified one song in the following way: “That last song was called ‘Dylan Hicks Can Suck My Cock.’” This, by the way, was an unfortunate, juvenile violation of the longstanding rock ‘n’ roll rule never to let anyone know you read your own criticism. But it got a big laugh, and probably made Dylan feel good too.

    As for our man from the Star Tribune, we noticed that he tea-totalled during the show, and we find this admirable and slightly depressing, as he scribbled in one of those little reporters’ notebooks that fit into a spacious back pocket. We have no doubt that his views of the show will be considerably more sober than our own, and that’s as it should be. However, through an unfortunate phrasing, he implied that the Kings played material mostly from their first album, whereas we know that the Kings left out only one song from their entire, uh, oeuvre—the beautiful but difficult “Day Old Blues.”

    Chris also managed to asperse the band by noting that they have received mixed reviews in other cities during this tour. But we’re not interested in other critics in other cities, and we don’t feel like the band should apologize for playing a tight show here. We know critics rely on other critics, but we wish they wouldn’t admit it. The fact that the Kings have been touring relentlessly since their first record—and that they recently had to forego a tour in Japan due to a bad case of CRSS guitar-elbow—and that they have been selected to warm up U2 on the monstrous Vertigo tour—all these facts kinda mitigate against this idea that the band can’t play live. Now as to the implication that they are taking illicit suppositories, as Reimenschneider seems to say, we can neither confirm nor deny that.

    Hey, this is fun—reviewing the reviewers. We really ought to get out more.